If I can purchase just one monitor....

[Nick Batzdorf]

Glenn, if you want a huge, blown-up picture that you can see from a distance, then that's a good monitor. It shows 1280 x 768 pixels.

If you to see more faders, then a standard 17" monitor gives you 1280 x 1024 resolution. In other words, the screen size is one thing, the pixel density is another.

I use two 17" AG Neovo X-174 monitors (one connected to DVI and the other connected by VGA to a KVM switch that shares it between my Mac and three Windows machines). That gives you 2560 x 1024 pixels on one stock monitor card for about $900 (considering street prices these days). The X-174 is an outstanding monitor.

To me this is the most practical and cost-effective solution these days, and you can (and I do) put them on LCD arms to position them in the right place. For comparison, the $2k 23-inch Apple display shows 1900 x 1200 and the $3300 30-inch shows 2560 x 1600.

So you could buy four 17" monitors for the price of one 23-inch Apple Cinema display. Those things are lustworthy, but to me the economics just don't add up.

[BlueDog]

After lusting for the Apple displays, I ended up buying 2 19" NEC 1960NXi LCDs for about the cost of 1 Apple 20". Both are connected via DVI (you need an ADC to DVI connector). These can be VESA mounted. The stands can be lowered more than most to keep out of the way of speakers. Pixel wise, you end up with a lot more realestate than 1 20". One other consideration for me was that 2 smaller displays allow my center channel surround monitor to sit at the proper hieght. With one big LCD I would have had to set it high and aim it down (not ideal). One of the other guys here just bought the Apple 23", and I have to admit it's a sexy thang, but I'm still very happy with my decision. One hidden cost of the NEC's is that they don't come with DVI cables (arrgh), though they're easy enough to get online.

[TVPostSound]

Good call, I have a pair of NEC 1760s.
NEC has the best price to value ratio.

Enjoy them!!!